"As deeply fond as I am of Rob, my relationship with Jesus is everything to me."
"The point was to ruin her... It was to send a message to the [people of] the state and the nation that if you dare to say ‘I refuse to violate my religious faith,’ they will literally put everything you own at risk."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
११७ टिप्पण्या:
Well, the Department of Justice will get this old hater's mind right. Because tolerance.
"She downplayed the threatening nature of the lawsuit. “It’s not like we mailed her a horse’s head,” the lawyer says."
So who is the one with standing here? Her alleged "friend" Rob?
In addition to targeting her business, Arlene’s Flowers, Inc., they sued Stutzman personally, ensuring that any assets she might own beyond the flower shop could be taken from her to pay their own legal fees if she lost.
“The point was to ruin her,” Stutzman’s lawyer, Kristen Waggoner of the conservative law group Alliance Defending Freedom, told the Monitor.
Because they can. The process is the punishment for faith
Religious belief shouldn't matter. Anybody has the right to refuse to service gay weddings because they're in the wedding business and this isn't a wedding.
If the state says it is, the state is wrong.
More generally, the civil rights law is wrongly drafted; only monopolies have to service all customers, or businesses under threat of state or private violence have to service all customers. Competitive markets serve who they please - freedom of association rules.
Freedom of association is discrimination. It's okay except in monopoly markets.
People knuckle under, all the time, to all sorts of things.
Right now I'm not in the mood to feel her pain.
Maybe later.
Her "friend"? If that clown is her friend, I'd like to know who her enemies are.
Just think of all the liberals who will read this article, then turn the page & read about the Republican convention & say to his/her-self "What do those asshole Republican voters see in Trump?".
And even though it's right in front of them, they'll never put that 2 + 2 together to get 4.
Mailing her a horse head wouldn't have ruined her life. So of course they didn't do THAT.
It's nice to see gay love in action, though. The fuck you is particularly noticeable.
Maybe Ms Stutzman should do a quick conversion to Islam, then invite her friend up a tall building & at the top show him a faster way down than the elevator.
At least, the lefties would be conflicted over who they should sympathize with....
How many people get personal phone calls from state Attorney Generals? I found that quite odd.
You know, the left is always accusing Christianity of bringing a Theocracy to the United States, but that Theocracy is always landing in leftist nations.
The left is always proclaiming No H8, and then they are spewing their hatred at the right.
The left is always decrying racism and then telling white people that they are inferior to minorities and need to be treated differently to counteract their supposed institutional superiority.
The left is always saying we shouldn't go to war and then they start blowing stuff up.
They left is always saying we should believe science and yet science is always proving them wrong.
I'm sensing a pattern here.
Coupe relayed: 'That woman is going straight to hell. She is Godless.'
That's a tough sell, Coupe. I have my doubts.
@Coupe,
"That woman is going straight to hell. She is Godless. Like most Protestants, she is confused." said my Priest.
How old is yer priest? 85?
No post-Vatican II priest would just casually denigrate Protestants en masse in speaking to a parishioner. Especially since:
1) Said priest would have to be quite liberal to defend gay marriage to a parishioner &
2) A liberal priest is going to be too raised in the spirit of ecumenism to slash the Protestants like that.
I'm calling bullshit on this one.
Ingersoll sounds like a vicious douche. Grow the fuck up. A gay adult is shocked that religious conservatives disapprove of gay marriages? What a contemptible little shit.
The increasingly-transparent use of the phrase "public accommodation" to dismantle the private sector will ultimately lead to irrevocable conflict, possibly including violent conflict. It creates an irreconcilable political difference where, as this article gently points out, personal—dare I say, private—reconciliation might have been possible.
This also points out why some of us insist on calling this hard Left insistence on "public accommodation" by its right name: fascism. Because it is exactly as Mussolini himself described it: "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."
@Coupe,
Homosexuality is a birth defect. Not unlike being born without arms.
There's no scientific evidence to support that. You are just postulating it as so. Maybe yes, but probably no.
In any case, being a homosexual isn't a sin. Homosexual acts are. In case you haven't noticed, lots & lots of "normal & common" heterosexual activities are sins, too.
It's perfectly normal for me to desire to have sex with women other than my wife. But, adultery is still a sin, no matter where that impulse towards heterosexual desire came from.
For real petty-minded vindictiveness, you just can't beat the love-and-tolerance gang.
I think there should have been a "bullying" tag there, too, for the way the American Criminal Liberties Union is going after her.
The State-established Church is notoriously Pro-Choice. The selective normalization of the transgender spectrum disorder including homosexual behavior (e.g. couplets) promotes a progressive condition similar to the dysfunction of class diversity schemes (e.g. racism). I wonder how much longer people will tolerate the selective doctrine of the twilighters.
coupe:
Let me guess. The priest subscribes to the faith and traditions of the Pro-Choice Church that receives its religious/moral instruction from the twilight zone as interpreted by liberal judges. He probably believes in the fantasy of spontaneous conception and is an advocate for the "final solution", as well as cannibalizing the parts for fun and profit.
"You have your freedom of conscience – that is your personal, private relationship with your faith"
This is the fundamental problem. An assertion of what constitutes freedom of conscience and what constitutes a religion. There is no religion that has ever existed that defines itself in terms of being "personal, private." There are a lot of people who want religion to be like this, and often their own religion, but the religions themselves are all public and communal.
The definition above asserts a statement of belief--"this is what religion is"--as a fact and then declares a violation of that asserted belief as the core problem. Meanwhile, freedom of conscience doesn't mean anything if it doesn't mean the freedom to engage or not engage in particular activities. We don't need freedom to think private, personal thoughts.
That said, I don't particular find it against Christianity to bake a cake or make flowers for a gay wedding. Providing a service is not an endorsement. But I understand how people might see it as such a violation. And they have the freedom to make such a choice. It's a bit like a modern equivalent of eating food sacrificed to idols.
While, arguable, an anti-gun sign maker should have to make a birthday sign for the owner of the local gun range, he absolutely should be able to refuse to make a sign for his machine gun shoot.
@coupe Read the article closer. She never denied "those people" flowers. Not once in nine years. She did, however, refuse to participate in an action that she and her church confesses is sinful.
My bigger concern is classism based on how expensive wedding services are. Why should a rich couple have a better wedding than a poor couple? Now that is financial discrimination! Simply because a person doesn't have enough money? Someone can have freedom of conscience to charge however much they want--in their personal, private space--but once they make those costs a public issue then they are discriminating against the poor.
Maybe Ms Stutzman should do a quick conversion to Islam, then invite her friend up a tall building & at the top show him a faster way down than the elevator.
Are there Muslim florists? Bakeries? I'm sure there are and I'm equally sure they would NOT do a gay wedding. Christians get targeted because they are unlikely to blow people up.
@mockturtle,
Christians get targeted because they are unlikely to blow people up.
No, worse than that. Orthodox Jewish bakeries won't do it either, & you don't see them being targeted.
No, the Left has Christianity in its gun sights, and has had since the French Revolution. Any other faiths affected are just collateral damage.
Bah. It's not like you'd have any reason to think you have a right to freedom of association. Who cares what those old white guys thought.
"“We immediately became concerned that we were going to experience the same treatment from other vendors as well,” Freed said. “The experience left us feeling isolated, singled-out, and discriminated against.”" I call BS. They did not even try to to find another florist, they were not isolated at all, and they exploited their being "discriminated" for all it was worth. Progs never rest. Coercion wins. Which defines the real meaning of life in Tony K's universe.
"That woman is going straight to hell. She is Godless. Like most Protestants, she is confused." said my Priest.
No he didn't.
rhhardin said...
"Freedom of association is discrimination. It's okay except in monopoly markets."
The clear import of the Civil Rights Act was that there is no right to freedom of association. It has taken half a century, but that import is now manifest.
The experience left us feeling isolated, singled-out, and discriminated against.
Oh, the poor long-suffering little poofter...
I'm sorry, are there grown men who talk like this in public over a fucking bunch of flowers?
What a pussy! And, by the way, that insult has nothing to do with him being gay. There are lots of gay men who also have other things to do with their lives other than whine, just like their straight brethren.
“The fear that Curt and Rob now have that they might be turned away again – it is one of the things that probably takes years off your life expectancy,” Chiang says. “
Hyperbole much?
Here are some things that may seriously take years off your life expectancy:
Being a cop.
Being in the military.
Working rotating shifts, any job, for years.
Working in mines.
Our moist robots have too much time on their hands, I wonder how this case would be handled in Singapore? Maybe they would just cane the old lady and be done with it.
In the end, there are two nations inhabiting the same space, and ultimately cannot coexist under present circumstances.
Because of the power of the state there are no private, unofficial or alternate organizations that can mediate. Nor is there any space for unofficial customary practices to defuse conflict. Everything is one thing or another.
This has led to increasing mutual hatred. Whats driving cases like this is pure hatred; if the poor lady had accommodated the case there would be another case; there will always be another case, and another and another into infinity. The attorney general was hunting for these, and all of his side are as well. In cases like this the law is merely a mechanism for the underlying hate.
Whats left is pure power vs pure power, for the sake of power.
Since the law is merely a tool for injustice, it becomes illegitimate, in the eyes of both sides, as those who benefit from the corruption of the law understand it just as clearly for what it is as the victims of the law. Whats left after that is only violence.
The State-established Church has a Pro-Choice problem that is not limited to selective normalization of the transgender spectrum disorder. It could have been principled tolerance, and public unions (or corporations for singles), instead progressives and liberals reveled in their bigotry, and Obama raised the rainbow flag of selective exclusion.
What a pussy! And, by the way, that insult has nothing to do with him being gay. There are lots of gay men who also have other things to do with their lives other than whine, just like their straight brethren.
Exactly! Just as there are black people who can speak of things other than race. Not on the Left, of course...
Rob and Curt aren't being nice in asking for only $7.91 to cover their expenses, they're just trying to make themselves look good despite being absolute cold-hearted narcissistic jackasses for bringing this lawsuit (not that the attorney general and the ACLU are any better here, as they were clearly itching to bring a lawsuit against someone for the point of bringing a lawsuit against someone).
Businesses generally shouldn't be obliged to take every potential customer that walks in the door - and the existence of so many myriad Terms of Service agreements tends to reinforce the view that businesses may do business on their terms (as for example the post further down with Twitter and Milo). It should not be a state or civil rights matter that a business declined to do business with someone that involved a non-essential service or product (i.e. Twitter isn't something one has a right to use any more than purchasing flowers from a particular vendor is a right).
In countries where there are incompatible cultures such cases are dealt with through mediation between the tribal groups involved (sometimes officially but usually unofficially), to which both parties would appeal. The dispute between groups would be seen in the context of risks of antagonizing the other side.
In the US there is a distinct lack of such organized entities, or rather a "conservative" entity that can credibly threaten those who hold the official positions and force a modus vivendi. The establishment of such communal organizations is generally the result of violent conflict. One or more of such conflicts seem to be due.
Isn't it becoming time for a separation, where the people divorce each other, being unable to live under uniform rules, and form their own societies where most laws apply within the tribe?
Conflicts between members of tribes can be taken up at the tribal level and be resolved in the full context of all other issues, risks and benefits.
The old Ottoman Millet system is a useful model.
Or, for a fascinating take on this, have a look at Neal Stephensons "Diamond Age".
Although the matter was considered a high priority, Freed and Ingersoll were told (in mid-March 2013) there would be no action taken in their case for several weeks out of concern that media coverage of the dispute with the florist might set back other efforts to advance gay rights.
Translates to: "We have to wait for Justice Kennedy to get all sentimental about "the whispers in the wind" before we beat the little old lady down.
I wonder if that ACLU lawyer knows that his vision of "religious freedom" is the same one Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn laid out as the religious freedom of the USSR in the Gulag Archipelago?
In a "Millet" system each party in the dispute, the "gay" persons and the florist, would appeal to their own community organization, each understanding that the others community does not recognize the values underlying the other sides sense of offense. This makes it a dispute between tribes to be negotiated and settled between these collective bodies, not between individuals.
interesting re: 'millet' systems. i like that
what a sub-human thing to do, picking on a 71 year old woman acting out of sincere religious conviction.
just wait for her kind to die if you hate them so much.
i'm sure she's lovely.
A lot of cold blooded jerks in this story. The customers of course. But my favorite is the ACLU legal director:
"“I am guessing the amount of fees is going to be substantial, but I don’t have a specific number for you,” says Emily Chiang, legal director at ACLU of Washington.
“Litigation is a messy, expensive thing, which is why we typically urge people to settle cases,” she says.
In other words, don't you dare oppose us. We have more money than you to spend, and individually it costs us nothing. We will crush you if you insist on your day in court. This from a "civil liberties" lawyer.
FYI Emily Chaing went to Yale as an undergraduate and then Harvard Law School. She spent 3 years at Cravath following her graduation, then two years at the "Brennan Center for Justice." Staff attorney at ACLU for two years then almost 6 years at University of Utah School of Law. That may not have worked out too well, because she then went back to ACLU, and her current post at ACLU Washington.
A few years ago she taught a seminar ""Ethics and Professionalism Through the Lens of the Right to Counsel: Reflections of the 50th Anniversary of Gideon"
The granny has 22 grandchildren, did not notice that on the first run through.
I don't think the attorney general, the litigants, or Emily Chiang of the ACLU and their whole legal team have that many between them, nor will they ever.
The florist has already won the future, because she has shown up.
David: “Litigation is a messy, expensive thing, which is why we typically urge people to settle cases,” she says.
"We will ruin any of you fucking peons who presume to fight back against the smooth running of our shakedown operations. Well, we'll ruin you in any case, but hey, destroy you, or destroy you, salt the earth, and blight your posterity, your choice."
A lot of cold blooded jerks in this story. The customers of course. But my favorite is the ACLU legal director.
Cold blooded? Oh, I dunno. I suspect there are high levels of spite and resentment motivating behaviors like this and careers like this. Their cause is hearted.
Activists are going to get gays killed. They can not have an honest disagreement so violence is what is left.
“Think about the enormity of what happened, that in this day and age you could walk into a store and someone could turn you away and say, ‘I’m not serving the likes of you,’ “ she says.
“This was a profoundly shaking experience for our clients,” the lawyer says.
“The fear that Curt and Rob now have that they might be turned away again – it is one of the things that probably takes years off your life expectancy,” Chiang says. “If every time you went into a store you had a little niggling fear that you might be turned away, that would eventually take a real toll on your well-being.”
This particularly annoys me. Scarred for life by a run in with an uncooperative shopkeeper?! Grow up!
"Their cause is hearted."
???
I do regret the "cold blooded" before the word "jerks." Eschew adjectives.
Putting up a post like this is what Prof. Althouse means by "supporting free expression." She is such a moral and intellectual coward. She is happy to see her political opponents' lives ruined, but she wants to be able to wash her hands and claim she is guiltless.
It's a bit like the Mafia demanding protection money--it's extortion, pure and simple
buwaya: Whats driving cases like this is pure hatred; if the poor lady had accommodated the case there would be another case; there will always be another case, and another and another into infinity. The attorney general was hunting for these, and all of his side are as well. In cases like this the law is merely a mechanism for the underlying hate.
Whats left is pure power vs pure power, for the sake of power. [my emphasis]
Bingo.
I'd add a psychological dimension beyond (or perhaps motivating) the hate and the power rage. These are miserable, empty-souled gits, who delude themselves that they are miserable because of "those people", and that they will only stop being miserable when "those people" have been brought to heel, punished, humiliated - but most of all, forced to approve of them. But their miserableness arises from a different source entirely, so the hunt is infinite, and must become ever more frenzied and vicious.
David: ???
...my cause is hearted...
"These are miserable, empty-souled gits"
Possibly, and probably for quite a few, but this is an awful lot of effort and expense for the sake of merely personal emotional gratification. This all is organized and funded at the highest levels. You do not get attorney generals, a couple of dozen of them or so, hunting such cases unless there is a bigger goal in mind.
Personally I think this is deliberate, organized tribal conflict. There are a set of very significant stakes, and I am speaking of money and power, attached to policies that are aligned among opposing populations besides the cultural differences. This harassment on cultural and moral markers is meant to create a political effect, a beating down and demoralization of the other side concerning all matters at issue.
Are there Muslim florists? Bakeries? I'm sure there are and I'm equally sure they would NOT do a gay wedding.
There are videos on Youtube (Steve Crowder did one) where people have gone into Muslim bakeries and asked for cakes for a gay wedding and have been denied. interestingly enough, apparently no gay person has.
This particular gay couple is very lucky they picked on a true Christian. If they tried this shit on me, i would have "changed my mind" when they threatened me, and then baked my worst wedding cake ever. I'm like Obama that way, I like to punch back.
coupe said...
"Denying services to homosexuals is like denying services to any person with a birth defect."
Well, yes. The concept of a "defect" presupposes a desirable state, from which the defect is a departure. I would say that homosexuality is such a defect. Indeed, the desire of some homosexuals to participate in an institution to which they appear to be unsuited demonstrates how sorely defective they understand themselves to be.
There is a paradox here. It is as if a person born unable to taste sweets nonetheless insisted upon eating candy. I cannot see that there is any moral or ethical obligation to indulge such insistence. I suppose, were it harmless, one might do so out of a sort of kindness. If it is kindness to assist someone in constantly reminding himself that he is defective.
I personally would appreciate a statement from Althouse that the waging of lawfare by the gay rights lobby against Christians is every bit as hateful and unwelcome as the anti-gay bigotry she is opposes.
I know, but I can dream can't I?
"I can dream can't I?"
Sure, just not in public.
David53 said...
Here are some things that may seriously take years off your life expectancy:
Being a cop.
Not really; police have a slightly lower death rate than truck drivers and salesmen. Professional fishing and logging are about 5X more dangerous, farming and mining 2X.
Some freaking "friend". Moral of the story, gay people have no loyalty.
Anglelyne said...
but most of all, forced to approve of them.
I love Big Brother and His minions.
Emily Chaing went to Yale as an undergraduate and then Harvard Law School.
I'm going to go out on a limb here, and tread on the sodden ground of ethnic stereotype, but here goes.
There are no more aggravating lefties than east Asian (e.g. Chinese, Japanese, Korean) lefties. I've known quite a few. Now, the "righties" of those ethnicities can be trying, too, but the righty is saved by the fact that he wants nothing more than to be left alone to his family, job, church, etc. He doesn't care much for the rest of us, but he doesn't see it as his job to change us. He just wants us non-ethnics out of his way.
The lefty, on the other hand, (especially an over-achiever like this lady) has stored up in her/his heart every slight & offense from her parents, family, & most especially, her American schoolmates. And along comes this lefty ideology to explain & justify all her rage at those stupid white Americans around her.
There's just one problem: she doesn't really know how to deal with how her original culture has shaped her, especially the fact that these cultures are the most ethnocentric on the planet. She sees herself only as victim, so she gives herself a pass on the most arrogant aspects of her native culture that shapes her world view. She'll get disgusted at how those stupid Southern rednecks just think that the blacks are basically gorillas. But, she'll pass over the fact that, where her family comes from, why, everyone who isn't e.g. Han Chinese, are gorillas, and goshtarnit, everybody knows it!
Because to face up to just how nasty her culture can be means she has to chill on the anger & understand just how many people her culture, when in power has ruthlessly victimized.
Gahrie said...
"I personally would appreciate a statement from Althouse that the waging of lawfare by the gay rights lobby against Christians is every bit as hateful and unwelcome as the anti-gay bigotry she is opposes."
It seems to me that the mere fact she chose to post on this matter indicates that she is not entirely comfortable with this latest incarnation of the Inquisition.
"Tags: flowers, law, religion and government, same-sex marriage, weddings"
When we are gone, will the robots have sex? And if they do, will they have acceptable and unacceptable kinds of sex?
Yes. And yes.
Probably.
And then what?
Oh yeah. The killing thing.
And then after the robots? What then?
"Ingersoll and Freed say that any negative consequences for Stutzman from the litigation would be her own fault. “Barronelle … was presented with a legal letter asking her to comply with the law. She chose not to, and chose to fight a battle in trial court, and now through appeals. Those decisions are hers and hers alone.”"
Don't they make a lovely couple?
Gahrie wrote: I personally would appreciate a statement from Althouse that the waging of lawfare by the gay rights lobby against Christians is every bit as hateful and unwelcome as the anti-gay bigotry she is opposes.
You've been a commenter here longer than I and so you should know that Althouse actually applauds and encourages this sort of hateful lawfare -- even if it destroys a pious old woman. But she's also got to know that some of us are saving up Schadenfreude for day when her time comes.
buwaya:
very significant stakes, and I am speaking of money and power
Exactly. This is why after the transgender judge overturned the Democrat vote opposing the selective normalization of the transgender spectrum disorder, the "=" activists came to Salt Lake City and targeted Mormons, not the majority Catholic or Protestant voters. They continue to target Christians, not because of their religion, but because they represent America's power, capital, and cultural base. This is just a stepping stone along the path of the leftist ideological pursuit to establish monopolies of capital and control at any cost.
i wonder how this gay couple will negotiate disputes within their marriage. If done with the same tolerance and humor that they handled the dispute with the florist, then my guess is that the lawsuit will last longer than the marriage.........The florist seems like an extremely sympathetic person, and the ACLU and the couple come across as total dicks. Just as a matter of proganda, this is a horrible test case. Couldn't they find a more bigoted bigot or a more traumatized gay couple to publicize? I don't know the legalities of the case, but something that looks this wrong just has to be wrong.
chickelit: But she's also got to know that some of us are saving up Schadenfreude for day when her time comes.
Heh heh!
Couldn't they find a more bigoted bigot or a more traumatized gay couple
They have it too easy, they can't be bothered, they're phoning it in. After all, the facts of the case don't matter, just the point that the Left and the MSM are trying to make. I mean look at the martyrs of the BLM movement, thugs and criminals one and all.
Facts don't matter, just the narrative. Althouse is a perfect example of their intended audience.
It doesn't take much to whip folks up into a frenzy around here. In most western countries it wouldn't occur to a devout florist to turn down a wedding request from a paying customer. But here the religious liberty crowd can even lead nice little old ladies to find lines in the sand where they don't exist, or haven't since the need to crush racial segregation defined the proper scope of what commercial businesses can and cannot do in the name of conscience.
Here's something no one has yet discussed, but should:
Public Accomodation laws should be abolished.
Because Constitution.
@readering,
In most western countries it wouldn't occur to a devout florist to turn down a wedding request from a paying customer.
That's because most western countries don't have 1st Amendment rights, asshole.
Are you really so clueless that you don't know about how shabbily Europe treats its believers? You miss that little business called the French Revolution? Of course, if you ask the atheists who run Europe, they'll tell you it's all hunky-dory. Ask the practicing Christians & you get another story.
The left loves to decry the influence of money on politics. I await the NYT article pointing out how cases like this and Obergefell would be laughed out of court if it weren't for the deep pockets of the gay rights lobby.
I'm disturbed that none of the people on the side of the gay men seem to even be aware of the distinction that the florist draws at the beginning of the article: she is happy to sell anyone flowers, but asking her to provide them for a gay wedding is asking her to participate in a ceremony that violates her conscience and her denomination's requirements. I think she has to explain how a florist's involvement in a wedding amounts to participation. (What if she just gets the flowers and someone else comes by, picks them up, and brings them to the wedding?) But no one on the other side even acknowledges that this is a potentially significant difference. They keep saying she's not allowed to refuse to serve them. But she claims she didn't refuse to serve them, she refused to participate in a gay wedding.
So when the lawyer says,
"Having only partial public accommodations would put the law on a slippery slope that could empower a grocery store clerk to refuse to sell milk to someone because of religious objections," Chiang says. “It sounds crazy but I think that’s where the logic takes you.”
she's being disingenuous. The logic doesn't take you there, unless there is no distinction between serving a customer and participating in a ceremony, and that's something she, her clients, and the state's attorney general haven't even addressed. As far as I'm concerned, neither side has made their case, but given that conscience applies to the individual, I am very wary of telling someone that if she feels there is a distinction there and that it would affect her relationship with God, then that's just too bad, the laws of this country don't let you live your life that way.
Floral design is a service, not a product. Ask anyone who did not get what they asked/expected on their wedding day!
The first gay marriage in Massachusetts lasted 800 days, I hope the daughter (now an adult) has found her dad and half siblings.
“The fear that Curt and Rob now have that they might be turned away again – it is one of the things that probably takes years off your life expectancy”
You know what could take years off your life expectancy? Being dragged into court in a case like this, being vilified, and having them threaten all your personal financial assets.
I'm wondering when it will occur to the squishes in the middle (like Professor Althouse) that the rest of us were actually right in opposing same-sex marriage. Probably never. You scoffed at our claim that it was a slippery slope that would turn the society into a total mess. We didn't have really convincing proofs that the consequences would be disastrous - so of course they wouldn't be. After all, we were being unfair to them (true), so all we have to do is even things out, so that no one can be unfair to anyone, no problem!
By the way, that was a very good article. They made sure to show all the points of view clearly, including the ACLU. Am I wrong in thinking that any normal human being will come away understanding that the ACLU and Rob are doing something profoundly evil?
Buwaya said:
Personally I think this is deliberate, organized tribal conflict. There are a set of very significant stakes, and I am speaking of money and power, attached to policies that are aligned among opposing populations besides the cultural differences. This harassment on cultural and moral markers is meant to create a political effect, a beating down and demoralization of the other side concerning all matters at issue.
Exactly. The gay couple was not permitted by their lawyers to speak personally to the reporter who wrote the article. They had to be interveiwed by email. The whole case came about after one of them bitched on Facebook and the post became viral. Activists obviously took up the cause and got them to sue the lady. I hope they feel guilty and miserable for doing this to someone they had a working relationship with. Did they realize their new found friends were bent on ruining this lady? Do they have enough of a conscience and enough balls to do the right thing and drop the suit? Probably not. Shame on them.
^^"interviewed"
Jim S - people who do customized design/service jobs for weddings do believe that they are trying to help the couple celebrate their union. It is participation - not just a cash and carry thing.
It seems to me that the right way to resolve this sort of case constitutionally and legally is to allow the right to not participate. There is a distinction between not serving a class of customers.
It would, for example, be wrong for this florist to refuse to serve all Germans. But I think she has the right to refuse to do flowers for a memorial service for Hitler.
Sadly, while Scalia was on the court this probably would have been resolved peaceably at the SC, but now I suspect we are heading toward a society in which the millions of orthodox-faith persons are going to be heading in the conservative Mennonite direction, and this is not good for our society.
William: Couldn't they find a more bigoted bigot or a more traumatized gay couple to publicize? I don't know the legalities of the case, but something that looks this wrong just has to be wrong.
We've moved well past the "move public opinion via litigants whom fair-minded people would agree have been treated unfairly" stage. There is obviously no "trauma" here.
It's transparent bullshit. And that's the point. "We can ruin you and we don't even have to pretend to be doing anything but ruining you for the sheer vindictive pleasure of indulging a puerile animus."
I still say she should have offered to do the wedding in the "You're going to burn in hell" arrangement.
Thorn branches and the like.
Would the AG at that point tell her what expressive content her floral arrangements must contain?
The experience left us feeling isolated, singled-out, and discriminated against.
...I'm sorry, are there grown men who talk like this in public over a fucking bunch of flowers?
I had the privilege of visiting the Holocaust Memorial at Dachau last month. The experience made me appreciate how little hardship and adversity most of us have experienced. It provided me with a clearer perspective on American life and what the left calls discrimination and hardship.
"MikeR said...
I'm wondering when it will occur to the squishes in the middle (like Professor Althouse) that the rest of us were actually right in opposing same-sex marriage."
Middle? You new here?
“It’s not like we mailed her a horse’s head,” the lawyer says.
Actually, you did.
"Middle? You new here?" Don't think so. Wasn't so long ago that a considerable majority of Americans opposed Same Sex Marriage. Very coincidentally, that was when opposition like DOMA was supported even by politicians on the left, such as Obama and the Clintons. Somewhere between then and now, the average American has decided that it isn't such a big deal, and if it isn't a big deal there's no reason to put gay people through this. No compelling societal need. So by now the squishes in the middle have moved over: if there's no compelling societal need, then it is discrimination that can't be justified. That's where I see Prof. Althouse falling.
But there really is a compelling societal need, but not one that can be proven or convincingly proven. You need wisdom to see it, and mostly we aren't wise. "The beginning of wisdom..."
MikeR said, "Middle? You new here?" Don't think so. Wasn't so long ago that a considerable majority of Americans opposed Same Sex Marriage.
Like Obama, and Hillary, and Bill Clinton.
Hypocritical jerks, in it for power, not for what is fair.
A few of us on the right never had a problem with SSM.
EDH said: "I still say she should have offered to do the wedding in the "You're going to burn in hell" arrangement. Thorn branches and the like. Would the AG at that point tell her what expressive content her floral arrangements must contain?
7/21/16, 7:35 AM"
That's very clever! And more than clever, it gets at a (the?) key issue, which is where your right to be treated equally (here, in a service contract) runs up against my right to interpret and perform my values in the course of rendering the services you demand? The law has a real problem --in principle and in practice-- with requiring specific performance of a contract, for exactly this reason. Try forcing Rembrandt to paint your portrait when he's not in the mood. See how well you do with that.
Here, the AG and the ACLU were attempting to enslave this woman: either perform acts to which she deeply objected, or be rendered destitute.
But it was important that they do so, because Feelings.
Regarding the acts which the AG and ACLU were attempting to force the defendant to perform: they were speech acts as well as ones reflective of her religious belief. Talk about the State putting "words" in your mouth. Has the First Amendment angle been thrashed enough here, or are we just getting started?
MaxedOutMama said...
"It seems to me that the right way to resolve this sort of case constitutionally and legally is to allow the right to not participate. There is a distinction between not serving a class of customers.
It would, for example, be wrong for this florist to refuse to serve all Germans. But I think she has the right to refuse to do flowers for a memorial service for Hitler."
Why exactly would it be "wrong" for a florist to refuse to sell flowers to all Germans? How did this inconsequential matter become the business of the government?
“Look, the ACLU doesn’t litigate to make money. And we don’t litigate cases to drive people into bankruptcy. That is never our goal.”
Um, yes you do. You gleefully go after those who in your opinion are "wrong thinkers" and take it as a personal slight so you do so with malice and glee with the intention of destroying those you go after.
When was the last time the ACLU took a 2nd A case? When was the last time the ACLU took a anti-AA case? When was the last time the ACLU took a religious liberties case?
Crickets....
I first realized that I was an atheist when I was in my teens. Some would say, that I have a defect that prevents me from participating in the most important of all relationships. Certainly, a number of people have felt it was their place to try to "help" me, to my considerable annoyance and occasional concern. I wanted freedom from, not of, religion.
But now I find that everyone has an ideology, and almost all of them are far, far worse than most modern flavors of Christianity. Look at the smug certainty with which that ACLU bitch consigns her victim to the flames.
My instinct is to attack the aggressor, not to defend her victims. But her victim requires defense;
https://www.continuetogive.com/4812329
"That woman is going straight to hell. She is Godless. Like most Protestants, she is confused." said my Priest.
Find a new church.
Owen said...
"Regarding the acts which the AG and ACLU were attempting to force the defendant to perform: they were speech acts as well as ones reflective of her religious belief. Talk about the State putting "words" in your mouth. Has the First Amendment angle been thrashed enough here, or are we just getting started?"
The latter. The behavior of the Inquisitors is not repugnant merely because it violates the First Amendment, which is, after all, merely one more law among the burgeoning multitude. Their behavior is sickening and repulsive because they are sadistic bullies intent upon crushing their innocent victim. Their concern is not with the sad sacks whose "rights' they claim to defend. Their concern is to publicly torture their victim to death, as an awful example to others that they may not be opposed in their least whim.
I am reminded of the Viet Cong, who would enter a Hmong village where Americans had vaccinated the children, and cut off every arm that bore a vaccination scar. The ACLU has become a totalitarian terrorist organization, and Emily Chiang is a terrorist.
Picking up on the idea of earlier commentators, suppose the florist had created her arrangement using thorns, wilted flowers and all sorts of other unpleasant looking foliage. Her gay customer, of course, would no doubt roundly reject it. And were he to bring a lawsuit, the issue now would be whether the courts should get involved in matters of artistic creativity and expression. No court is going to want get into the business of examining an artist's inner thoughts behind her creative work. The case wold be dismissed outright.
Looking forward, will the little old florist live to see her case rise to the Supreme Court and get a hearing on the difference between "service" and "participation"?
One would hope so. But I'm pessimistic given that I've heard no left of center (Althouse included) voices ever acknowledge the participation obligation.
In the end this should lead to the complete abolishing of the concept of "protected classes" under our constitution. Let's make Justice blind again and take the lefties' thumbs off her scale while we're at it.
...and what Owen said at 8:24!
Regarding speech acts: I am no Con Law scholar and would be grateful for guidance here. But in the context of "hate speech" we are being lectured that speech to which a listener objects is a kind of verbal violence, not merely sound but something with a physical effect. People claim to be traumatized, sickened, shaken to their souls, by mere words. Very well, then: if words can have this power, so too can performative acts. If the State can prohibit speech that is hateful to a listener, can it require speech that is hateful to the speaker?
Keep reminding us that it's those nasty, old, regressive people on the Right who start unnecessary "culture war" fights, Professor.
Keep reminding us it's all about Love.
Folks, do remember that "coupe" is more or less performance art. coupe's comments are always way out there, perhaps starting seriously but finding their way into crazy land after a few sentences. I find him amusing. Most creative. Not to be taken seriously.
What I find very interesting is the ACLU is sounding very much like a cartoon super villain.
"The fact that I am destroying your village is ALL YOUR FAULT!!! If you just agreed to my generous slavery terms none of this would be necessary. YOU WANTED THIS!!!"
mtrobertslaw said...
Picking up on the idea of earlier commentators, suppose the florist had created her arrangement using thorns, wilted flowers and all sorts of other unpleasant looking foliage. Her gay customer, of course, would no doubt roundly reject it. And were he to bring a lawsuit, the issue now would be whether the courts should get involved in matters of artistic creativity and expression. No court is going to want get into the business of examining an artist's inner thoughts behind her creative work. The case wold be dismissed outright.
7/21/16, 9:34 AM
Your idea only has weight if actual law were involved. With the court full of sorts like a "wise Latina", I am sure they will "know it when they see it" and the florist will not only lose but be eviscerated with "high liberal logic" that will stand the test of time and be a an example of jurisprudence for the ages.
"Picking up on the idea of earlier commentators, suppose the florist had created her arrangement using thorns, wilted flowers and all sorts of other unpleasant looking foliage."
Her morals would likely have kept her from even considering such a thing. Just as her morals kept her from saying, "Sorry, all booked up that weekend".
And so she leaves herself open to ruination.
“It’s not like we mailed her a horse’s head”
Someone a little more self-aware would realize that making this statement is a loss of all moral standing. She's essentially quibbling about what kind of thug she is.
Static Ping @ 10:54: "…She's essentially quibbling about what kind of thug she is."
Bingo.
Static Ping: Someone a little more self-aware would realize that making this statement is a loss of all moral standing. She's essentially quibbling about what kind of thug she is.
"What kind of lady do you think I am?"
"We have already established what you are. Now we are merely haggling over the size of the threat."
With apologies to Winston Churchill.
It saddens me that all of this could have been avoided had there been just a little compassion, understanding, and forgiveness (and a little forethought about a social media post). Instead the gay couple poisons what seems to be a wonderful and kind friendship over the past 9 years. All the kindness and love shared over 9 years means nothing now?
"Do your thing...or I'll ruin you."
I asked Althouse to opine on how the Mormon persecution cases of the 1800's would be used today. Back then, the Mormons disagreed with the official, approved concept of marriage that the US federal government held. For that disagreement, they lost all their civil rights; and that's no hyperbole: they lost the right to vote, hold political office, the right to a jury trial, and their property was seized without compensation. It was a comprehensive destruction of their rights, based on their dissent from the Federal Marriage standards. The scary thing is that the US Supreme Court upheld all of it. 9-0 to strip all Mormons of the right to vote, regardless of their actual practices; it was held to be legal to bar Mormons based solely on their membership in their church.
I fully, fully expect the gays to do this again. This time, it won't be just the Mormons, though. And I fully expect Althouse to endorse stripping all Christians of all of their civil rights because gays are just so much "better than you."
Right Ann? Christianity must be rooted out, tooth and nail, from this country--no matter what violence is done to the Constitution, correct?
--Vance
The ACLU lawyer is dissembling. No, strike that. She's either an ignoramus, a piss poor lawyer or a liar. Selling someone milk in a shop is not the same thing as personal participation in wedding. They aren't suing because she refused to sell them flowers, but because she wouldn't personally handle the arrangement for their ceremony.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा